Ex-law clerk sues presiding judge

A former law clerk of Superior Court Presiding Judge Roberto Naraja is suing his former employer for allegedly spying on him virtually even after his contract had already expired.

Robert Mang has filed a lawsuit against his former employer with the Superior Court, alleging that even after months since his contract with the court expired, his employer was still spying and monitoring him through his computer.

According to Mang’s lawsuit, the general scheme allegedly involves extensive spying against him by his employer.

“It started as work-from-home monitoring in or about June 2021 and is still ongoing despite my clerkship concluding in October 2021. The CNMI overlooked the need to disclose the lack of expectation of privacy in their personal manual, my contract, or on the laptop itself. They gained access to my internet in Maryland by duping my elderly parents into joining the scheme,” Mang said.

Mang alleges that the Superior Court has mostly used the spying to contact 22 other judges he interviewed with during and after his clerkship.

“I can only speculate about their motives, but it appears the Superior Court is offended that I overlooked disclosing that I had failed the bar exam to Presiding Judge Naraja and by my desire to cut the clerkship short. It is difficult to even speculate about why they continued for so long or why they would believe that to be a lawful means of redressing their issues with me,” he said.

As relief, Mang wants the court to award him actual damages, general damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, and other relief the court finds appropriate.

In addition, the plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for his injuries, including, but not limited to, a breach of fiduciary duties, mental agony, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, continued emotional distress, medical care, lost earnings, and diminished future earnings in an amount to be proven at trial.

Mang also seeks non-economic damages for lost wages, pain and suffering, mental agony, loss of enjoyment of life and diminished future earnings in an amount to be proven at trial.

Lastly, the plaintiff seeks punitive damages, in an amount to be proven at trial, for the court’s bad faith, intentional or negligent infliction of emotion distress, breach of contract, and displaying actual malice while acting recklessly.

“Defendant acted with malice, because his actions demonstrated that the defendant had mischief in his heart, with culpable recklessness and a willful and wanton disregard for the effect his actions would have on the plaintiff. He did not care if the plaintiff were harmed by his actions,” the suit stated.